You would think that with all the billions of dollars flowing through the hands of CAGW alarmists they would be able to produce something better than this video (or the lame one titled “We are Climate Scientists”).

But then the other side is somewhat amateurish too as seen here, haha!

There is only one document in question, and it correlates hugely to the other documents which Heartland is using as evidence. i.e. proving its true.

The only new think you get out of the Gleick document is a few inflamitory statements. What ever. Perhaps the stuff you read is intented to distract you from Heartland’s other and very real documents?

Now I am curious as to why you and Hank_ aren’t going gangbusters on Heartland’s criminal activities. I mean fraudulently misrepresenting who they are. Wiretapping, conversations and presenting them to the world for fake news. That kind of fraudulant activity is so wrong. Why Heartland has no ethics is beyond me. It is criminal to wiretap isn’t it? Why do you hold such fraudulant activity up as good behavior? What is wrong with you two?

The only difference between Gleick’s actions and Heartland’s appears to be that Heartland must much dumber. (ie they fell for a phish at first opportunity) Meanwhile, Greenpeace isn’t stupid despite being victims of an attempted fakegate.

Have you got a link? Is this your work or someone elses? The first thing i would say is, as soon as I see someone start a conversation/argument/debate/article with “Green thinking”. I know exactly where on the political spectrum the author occupies and what the argument is going to be.

While not a Greens voter myself, I’m torn between annoyance at every man and his dog using the term “Green” to sell their wares, even if it has little to do with “being green” and sympathizing with Greens over attacks from the right desperate to defend their funding.

Have to go out in a minute, but a few things stand out.

“When the climate took a turn for the worse during the so-called Younger Dryas period some 12,000 years ago, our ancestors didn’t don a hair shirt and hope for the best. They innovated.”

The Younger Dryas was not global. Secondly, it occurred 11.5 k to 12.8k years ago. Humans didn’t exactly thrive. The Holocene Optimum occurred 5k to 9k years ago and we know that humans can thrive in these conditions. We are changing the conditions now through fossil fuel use away from those optimal conditions and we don’t know for sure whether humans can thrive in these conditions.

“Nurses nurse and teachers teach only because someone else is providing their Joules, Calories and other material needs.”

True, but history shows what happens with an uneducated populous or an unhealthy populous.

“coal from the ground slowly began to replace wood from the land as the primary source of energy, a transition that only peaked in the early 20th century. In the late 19th century oil from the ground replaced oil from whales as the primary source of energy for domestic lighting.”

Yes, because both sources of energy were fast depleting. Like oil is today. Because of the rapidly depleting source of energy (Whale oil) they raised the taxes on whale oil to $1 a gallon & lowered Kerosene to 10 cents. Just like the subsidies for renewables that are being attacked today by the oil industry.

“Coal eventually helped depleted woodland to re-grow, while the oil industry arguably saved the whale.”

Which is why we are advocating moving away from fossil fuels. To maintain the optimum conditions we knowWE (humans) can thrive in.

“In Germany, Die Grünen manoeuvred Angela Merkel into a nuclear shutdown that will close the single largest source of carbon-free energy in Europe’s largest economy.”

They are at the forefront of adding renewables into the mix and can see that nuclear is not needed. They are also a conservative government & the public have voted them in for the past few terms.

“Our energy mix therefore needs to transition away from coal, and ultimately oil, and towards methane, uranium and later thorium.”

I’m all for Gen 4 reactors. Anything else will not cut it with the public, especially after Fukushima. Regardless of the stupid positioning of those reactors.

“Nuclear energy does indeed present an intergenerational transfer, but it’s an overwhelmingly positive one. By constructing compact, nuclear plants with a design life of 60 years we can leave future generations the ability to generate abundant clean, reliable low cost energy towards the end of the century”

How much R&D& subsidies have Nuclear been given in comparison to renewables over the years? It’s an un-even fight and an unfair comparison. They are not starting on an even footing.

“The greatest danger to humanity is not climate change, nuclear energy or the other calamites that form the cataclysmic imagery of mainstream Green thinking. It is a paralysis of inaction due to risk aversion, coupled with a wider technological pessimism that has robbed us of a coherent vision of a better future.”

Renewables with the tax incentives and R&D that fossil fuels & Nuclear have enjoyed over the years, can easily provide enough of our energy needs far into the future with no risk of depletion or damage to the environment we all share. Efficiency will only get better. Inaction is only happening because of a well funded, well orchestrated fossil fuel industry, keen to maintain its’ dominance & see of any competition. They have access to better means of mass marketing than every before inhistory with previous competitors and they won’t just sit by and participate in a fair fight.

“I know exactly where on the political spectrum the author occupies and what the argument is going to be.”

A mind reader. Mmm, whatever next.

“attacks from the right desperate to defend their funding.”

I wish.

“Younger Dryas period some 12,000 years ago” would equate to your “Secondly, it occurred 11.5 k to 12.8k years ago”, Maths doesn’t seem to be your strong point.

“In Germany, Die Grünen manoeuvred Angela Merkel into a nuclear shutdown that will close the single largest source of carbon-free energy in Europe’s largest economy.”

Your reply:

They are at the forefront of adding renewables into the mix and can see that nuclear is not needed. They are also a conservative government & the public have voted them in for the past few terms.

In that case, why did they had to restart 3 of the 8 nuclear reactors in January to cope with the lack of baseload when the wind didn’t blow. (That’s in de spiegal).

“Renewables with the tax incentives and R&D”

You mean my tax money that is subsidising an intermittant, unreliable (Offshore wind turbines in many cases are failing after eight years or less, rather than the twenty they are supposed to last), and are lucky to deliver 30% of their rated power output). This you can find out for your self on the DECC website.

You wish they were defending their funding from fossil fuel companies? Or you wish you were also getting funding from fossil fuel companies to create anti green stories to stymie competiton?

“Younger Dryas period some 12,000 years ago” would equate to your “Secondly, it occurred 11.5 k to 12.8k years ago”, Maths doesn’t seem to be your strong point.

Detail doesn’t seem to be your strong point. Otherwise you would have continued reading instead of verballing. You might have seen this:

“The Holocene Optimum occurred 5k to 9k years ago and we know that humans can thrive in these conditions. We are changing the conditions now through fossil fuel use away from those optimal conditions and we don’t know for sure whether humans can thrive in these conditions.”

The argument was not that the Younger dryas existed, or the period when it existed, but the fact that humans did not thrive in those conditions. We know we can thrive in conditions like the Holocene. We can surely survive a warmer climate, but whether we thrive is an unknown. Sensible people would not take that risk.

“In that case, why did they had to restart 3 of the 8 nuclear reactors in January to cope with the lack of baseload when the wind didn’t blow”

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.